People who know me know that I know next to nothing about sports. I just never got the sports bug. (Except for rodeo.)

But even a person as sports-benighted as myself is aware that Super Bowl ads are the pinnacle of television advertising, that they can cost millions of dollars, and that they can create notable ripples in the culture.

Focus on the Family will broadcast the first Super Bowl ad in its history February 7 during CBS Sports’ coverage of the game at Dolphin Stadium in South Florida.

The 30-second spot from the international family-help organization will feature college football star Tim Tebow and his mother, Pam. They will share a personal story centered on the theme of “Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life.” . . .

The Tebows said they agreed to appear in the commercial because the issue of life is one they feel very strongly about.

The Associated Press reported this week that the ad’s theme will be “Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life,” with Pam Tebow sharing the story of her difficult 1987 pregnancy—instead of getting an abortion she decided to give birth to Tebow, the now-famous quarterback who went on to become a Heisman Trophy winner, leading the Gators to two BCS wins.

So this has a bunch of people on the pro-abortion side of the aisle atwitter, and according to Reuters (big surprise they’d make the pro-aborts the lens through which to view the story):

U.S. women’s groups are urging television broadcaster CBS not to air an ad during next month’s Super Bowl football championship final because they say it has a strident anti-abortion rights message. . . .

The Women’s Media Center and over 30 other liberal and women’s advocacy groups sent a letter to CBS, the TV network to air the Super Bowl on Feb. 7, saying: “... we urge you to immediately cancel this ad and refuse any other advertisement promoting Focus on the Family’s agenda.”

“We are calling on CBS to stick to their policy of not airing controversial advocacy ads ... and this is clearly a controversial ad,” Jehmu Greene, the president of the Women’s Media Center, told Reuters.

Fortunately, CBS seems to be sticking to its guns:

CBS said it no longer had a blanket filter on advocacy submissions for ad slots. “We have for some time moderated our approach to advocacy submissions after it became apparent that our stance did not reflect public sentiment or industry norms on the issue,” said CBS spokesman Dana McClintock.

Phil-
A few thoughts occurred to me as I was wiping the flakes and milk from my keyboard…
1)How many other football players are in Tebow’s shoes…the sons of women who made the courageous CHOICE FOR life?!?!
2)Some claim that domestic violence increases on Super Bowl Sunday…wouldn’t moral and ethical ads be a helpful addition to the day?

Posted by Cheryl on Monday, Feb, 8, 2010 1:29 PM (EST):

“…playing politics in front of millions of viewers…”
You fail to see that TV ads are an extremely effective avenue of getting one’s word out. The people who own the station hold the reins there. The people who WATCH have the final say, however. Simply turn the darn TV off if you don’t like the ads. THAT is how to make YOUR opinion heard.
I have to say I CHOKED on a corn flake when I read your “...PP would rather put their money to good use by helping people…” Isn’t “killing” the appropriate word???

Posted by Phil on Sunday, Feb, 7, 2010 3:08 AM (EST):

Cheryl:

Yet again you miss the point. The fact that PP would rather put their money to good use by helping people that believe in the right to choose RATHER than playing politics in front of millions of viewers is irrelevant. The fact that cbs WILL allow them to air the ad if they want to spend the dough is the issue here, not PP’s decision not to. Basically it opens the floodgates to being inundated by opportunist organizations with moral sales pitches during a *football* game. I say keep’em all on the sidelines, every last one of them. I guess I just prefer to watch my football without unsolicited lessons on morality. Just a personal preference. No need to suggest that anyone choke on anything (even jokingly) or carry this thread on any longer. Enjoy your game also.

Posted by Cheryl on Friday, Feb, 5, 2010 6:07 PM (EST):

Phil-
First, PP is not airing an ad - it is only an “on-line” clip. As their spokesperson claims regarding any spending for a TV spot: “We feel the money is better spent with our affiliates at their health [?] centers.”
Second, the “gay” ad hasn’t been bought. Guess it wasn’t up to CBS specs.
Third, why is MUTE such a dirty word?
Enjoy YOUR game. Don’t choke on a chip :-)

Posted by Phil on Wednesday, Feb, 3, 2010 8:27 PM (EST):

Hate to say I told ya so, but…hello floodgates. Here is the ad by planned parenthood in response to the Tebow ad.

Get ready for commercials about gays in the military, legalizing marijuana, capital punishment, tea parties, health care, all of it. Awesome. Great. *sigh*
Enjoy your Superbowl everyone. Make sure you are ready to push that mute button (Cheryl’s solution).

Posted by Cheryl on Friday, Jan, 29, 2010 7:54 PM (EST):

I agree. It would seem in a country with a president that claims he would like there to be “fewer abortions,” and with the various ‘reproductive rights’ groups claiming their goal is ~really~ to reduce the number of abortions, that this particular ad spot would be something ALL WOULD BE AGREEING ON.

Posted by Cheryl on Friday, Jan, 29, 2010 3:29 PM (EST):

As I said, I see no reason to censor the ad.
TVs come with mute buttons and on/off switches.
“Be not afraid.”

Posted by Phil on Friday, Jan, 29, 2010 2:00 PM (EST):

Cheryl, when I say “a deep and profound effect on the lives of women” I also mean in a bad way. Consider that people don’t want to be bothered in deep and profound ways during a football game. The whole reason you want this ad shown is because it’s the Superbowl and many people will be watching. And the reason you want this shown when many people are watching is because you are selling something - you are selling a belief. You are hoping people will buy into your belief, no differently than they would buy Coke or Pepsi. But the primary difference to me is that Coke or Pepsi is not offensive to some. Coke or Pepsi doesn’t bring some women to tears every time the soft drink topic comes up. I’m not saying you shouldn’t be able to sell your belief - as I said, the truth will always win out in the end. The point I am trying to get across is that using a widely watched football game as a political tool to spread a political agenda should not be allowed. Why? Because here is what will happen next - mark my words. It will open the floodgates to commercials about legalizing marijuana, banning capital punishment, gay marriage and gays in the military, political slams on politicians, etc. etc. etc. In my opinion, these messages do not belong in a commercial of a widely watched football game. Agree to disagree I suppose. GLTY

Posted by Cheryl on Friday, Jan, 29, 2010 1:36 PM (EST):

“You want your pro-life ad to be displayed for all to see.” Actually, I see no reason to censor it.
“Yet the law says otherwise…” I don’t believe Congress has yet passed a law outlawing such ads to be shown.
“...millions of women don’t seem to agree with you.” Are we to only air ads that ALL Americans can agree on? Now, THAT is silly.
“…consider the off chance that people of many different beliefs will be watching this football game.” Of course this is the case. So what?
You hide behind the claim of “political talking points.” However, you do rightly identify the pro-life message as one that has “a deep and profound effect on the lives of women” and as a way one “should live their life.” As such, this ad transcends politics.

Posted by Marcus on Friday, Jan, 29, 2010 10:58 AM (EST):

It’s amusing that some think the Tebows’ story isn’t an appropriate subject matter to be aired during a sporting event. It’s amusing because I already heard the story, in a feature much longer than 30 seconds, during ESPN’s College Gameday, possibly ESPN’s most popular show. The reason is simple; Tebow is a star football player. In fact, his “Q-rating” is just under that of Peyton Manning and actually higher than Drew Breese (the other QB in the Superbowl). So, a commercial featuring one of the most popular figures in the football world actually seems very appropriate to air during football’s most popular game.

Also, aren’t the people that oppose this ad supposed to be “pro-choice”? This ad will just demonstrate the positives of one of the sides of that “choice”.
And to see the oppositions stance articulated as eloquently as possibly, check out Joy Behar’s comments here:

As one blog put it, because, you know, the odds of your kid growing up to be a rapist pedophile (as opposed to those non-rapist ones) are like 50/50.

Posted by Phil on Friday, Jan, 29, 2010 2:42 AM (EST):

Cheryl, for starters, you can’t even begin to compare the 9/11 ad with a pro-life/pro-choice ad. One is a political talking point/debate and the other isn’t.

This argument, to me at least, isn’t (and wasn’t) about choosing between pro-choice/pro-life. This argument is about inundating people with political platforms during a football game (we shouldn’t do it). Remembering our fallen citizens at 9/11 is not a political agenda. Cheering for the safe return of our soldiers is not sending a political message. We ALL believe in remembering our fallen citizens. We ALL are happy that soldiers come home alive.

You want your pro-life ad to be displayed for all to see. You are convinced you are right on your stance. Yet the law says otherwise (not sure if you are aware) and millions of women don’t seem to agree with you. Let’s at least try to pretend to consider the off chance that people of many different beliefs will be watching this football game. And then let’s assume they want to watch football rather than a cleverly placed ad telling them (subtly) how they should live their life.

Posted by Cheryl on Thursday, Jan, 28, 2010 11:24 PM (EST):

Phil, my comparison was to illustrate that deciding NOT to air an ad simply because the “opposition” may stoop to retaliation next year (I think that is what you are hinting at) is silly. You do realize that not ALL Super Bowl ads have been materialistic and shallow – as example, Budweiser’s 2002 ad “Respect” (remembering World Trade Center attacks) and its 2005 ad (applauding returning soldiers).
Why NOT an ad that could have a “deep and profound effect on the lives of women”? That, to me, seems to transcend “political talking points”.
Frankly – yes – you are free to NOT watch the ad. Likewise, CBS is entirely free to air the ad.

Posted by Faith on Thursday, Jan, 28, 2010 7:36 PM (EST):

I am excited to see that another alternative is being offered for those that may not want to choose abortion and can feel supported in not choosing it. It has been hailed as the first choice and best choice etc….all in the name of commerce. Make no mistake abortion is “Big Business”. It is a good thing that someone may recieve some encouragement by this commercial to choose life. Just as one should not be bashed for aborting their child, another should be allowed to be proud of the choice that they made for delivering the child they got pregnant with through not so “ideal” circumstances. Not everyone who has been raped chooses abortion one of my best friends had her baby after such a circumstance and gave the baby up for adoption. She is proud of her decision and should be. I have been raped…have you Phil. I did not get pregnant, but I was an unwed mother.I am proud of my friend and I deserve to have others applaud me for standing up for Life. I am Pro-Woman, Pro-Child and Pro-Life

Posted by Phil on Thursday, Jan, 28, 2010 6:16 PM (EST):

Cheryl, now the silly talk starts. If you honestly don’t see the difference between commercials for Coke and Pepsi versus those for life and abortion then we should stop the conversation right here. Coke and Pepsi are soft drinks Cheryl, not political talking points. They don’t have a deep and profound effect on the lives of women. And yes, I do have an on/off button. But what is your point? Are you suggesting that everyone who doesn’t want to watch a political talking point during a FOOTBALL GAME not watch the Superbowl? Does that seem fair? Wouldn’t it be more fair if the political talking point were not be allowed to be aired in the first place?

Posted by Cheryl on Thursday, Jan, 28, 2010 4:05 PM (EST):

Phil- Does Pepsi hold back because Coke might then be prompted to advertise? Does UPS remain silent out of fear of FedEx speaking up? Need Budweiser fear Miller? Or, Reebock, Nike? The Tebows have an important message – there is nothing they need to fear.

It would seem to me that the results of this ad are quite tangible already – Focus on the Family and the Tebows are getting way MORE ‘airplay’ than they had to pay for ;-)

As far as “being force-fed a particular belief…”....doesn’t your TV come with an ON/OFF switch?

Posted by Phil on Thursday, Jan, 28, 2010 12:37 PM (EST):

Cheryl…you missed my point entirely. I am not trying to choose a side here. I simply stating my belief that the Superbowl is not the place for pro-life or pro-choice ads. That is, unless you want to watch an ad celebrating life along with an ad about “a woman who, after being beaten unconscious and then raped by her Father, is then forced, by law, to bear a baby out of incest”

Posted by Elastico on Thursday, Jan, 28, 2010 7:47 AM (EST):

If the ad lives up to its hype, it will be fantastic. What a positive, pro-family, non-violent message. An excellent use of funds by Focus on the Family to put forth a message filled with hope and promise. Reminds me of a commercial years back: “Life. What a beautiful choice.” Glad the fretting Phil is not the copywriter.

Posted by Cheryl on Thursday, Jan, 28, 2010 12:00 AM (EST):

Phil’s knee-jerk ad scenario of “…a woman who, after being beaten unconscious and then raped by her Father, is then forced, by law, to bear a baby out of incest…” Would he rather have her bear the life-long burden of having killed an innocent life? Or, have her face increased cancer risk due to an abortion? Pain from an abortion lasts a LIFETIME, a pregnancy lasts 9 MONTHS. Rape is a horrible crime…the taking of an innocent life will do NOTHING to assuage the pain incurred.

Concerning tubal pregnancies – removing a tube to prevent the death of a woman does NOT have the INTENT to KILL the child. It is a very sad situation with a very sad result….however, it is NOT abortion.

Posted by Phil on Wednesday, Jan, 27, 2010 4:09 PM (EST):

“Phil’s comment comes from a ‘what-if scenario’ because those laws don’t exist.”

And this commercial, while celebrating life, will also be based on a ‘what-if scenario’, i.e. what if abortion ceases to exist. When you make a case for pro-life with a tug-at-your-heartstrings 30 second commercial, it, by default, makes a case against abortion, which is currently permissible by law. Making abortion illegal is a what if scenario as well.

“Can’t we e just celebrate that without feeling we need to give justify it?”

Which is precisely my point. It can and should be celebrated each and every day. But it may not be appropriate to celebrate it during the Superbowl. That’s politicizing it. There is no need to justify truth via a glorified pop-up ad saying “life is great.” Truth doesn’t need the Superbowl. As I said in a prior note, it then opens the door for another form of pro-life commercials that deliver messages such as “I would have died if I wasn’t allowed to have an abortion” and that shouldn’t be allowed to be shown during the Superbowl, should it?

Posted by Doris Robertson on Wednesday, Jan, 27, 2010 3:55 PM (EST):

What is the Women’s Media Center afraid of? That by seeing this ad,
people might reconsider their thoughts and plans to have an abortion?
They say they’re Pro-Choice , , , , the operative word here is “Choice”.
Some people actually choose to have their child. Imagine that!

Posted by Rachel on Wednesday, Jan, 27, 2010 3:02 PM (EST):

Phil’s comment comes from a ‘what-if scenario’ because those laws don’t exist. And we’ve yet to even see the proposed ad - but how twisted is our culture that a “Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life” message is being ripped apart and criticized. What better format to have families see someone who faced a struggle and overcame it. Isn’t that what the Superbowl celebrates to some degree? The New Orlean’s Saints playing their first ever, coming back after the devastation of the hurricane? The game is being celebrated by families all over the country, so why not let them see a message that supports their very existence?

Yes, Ms. Tebow’s struggle involved a decision not to abort, but wasn’t her decision a good one? Can’t we e just celebrate that without feeling we need to give justify it?

Posted by Phil on Wednesday, Jan, 27, 2010 2:45 PM (EST):

Jimmy, just curious how you would feel about a commercial running during the Superbowl showing a woman who, after being beaten unconscious and then raped by her Father, is then forced, by law, to bear a baby out of incest…or maybe a woman with a tubal pregnancy that is forced, by law, to continue to carry the pregnancy too late and dies as a result. Is the Superbowl the appropriate venue to watch a woman die during pregnancy? Is the Superbowl the appropriate venue for being force-fed a particular belief on any political topic? For the record, I am not disagreeing with the message…but I am not sure that an ad during the Superbowl is the right approach. No politics there please. No abortion talk. No gay marriage messages. No “legalize marijuana” for this reason or that reason. People watch sports and the Superbowl to get away from politics. Just my opinion. Furthermore, broadcasting this message during the Superbowl is more of a political stunt than an effective tool anyway. This may be a great ad but why not spend the millions on something more tangible than a 30 second commercial? Why not spend the money in ways that would go much farther than a crap shoot aimed at changing someone’s mind in under one minute?

Join the Discussion

We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words.
By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines.
Comments are published at our discretion. We won't publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words.
Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.

The time period for commenting on this article has expired.

Comments are no longer being accepted on this article.

Jimmy Akin

Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant pastor or seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith. Eventually, he entered the Catholic Church. His conversion story, “A Triumph and a Tragedy,” is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to Catholic Answers Magazine, and a weekly guest on “Catholic Answers Live.”